Labels

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Studios love to make horror movies because
their low budgets make them a low risk/high reward proposition. The successful
ones inevitably spawn sequels. Unfortunately, many of these follow ups prove to
be disappointing. The movies on this list go beyond that. They are staggering
in their ineptitude and should be avoided at all costs. In some cases, they
killed their franchises. Read on, if you dare, and enter the realm of the truly
awful horror movie sequel.

“Friday the 13th Part V: A New
Beginning” and “Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan”

These two installments of the long-running
slasher series have long been considered the weakest, and it’s not hard to see
why. Part V commits the cardinal sin of replacing hockey masked maniac Jason
Voorhees with a copycat killer. Tommy Jarvis, the kid who “killed” Jason at the
end of the prior installment, is now a mentally unstable teenager living in a
halfway house filled with boring, disgusting, and annoying people. He is
tortured by recurring visions of Jason. Soon
a mysterious man in a hockey mask begins killing everyone around him. Has Tommy
snapped? Has Jason returned from the dead? Or is someone else behind the
killings? The first four films in the series may not have had great acting or
high production values, but they did feature a genuinely creepy atmosphere and contained
loads of entertainment value. Part V is flat, dull, and boring. It has no
redeeming value whatsoever. The “Friday the 13th” franchise never
pretended to be high art, but it didn’t have to sink this low.

“Jason Takes Manhattan” at least features
the real Jason. After being shocked back to life by a malfunctioning underwater
electric cord (yes, really), Jason Voorhees inexplicably decides to board a
cruise ship that is taking Crystal Lake’s graduating high school seniors to New
York City. After killing several people, Jason reaches NYC, but the movie’s low
budget keeps him from doing much once he gets there. The film ends with Jason
transforming into a child after being drenched in raw sewage.That pretty much sums up this dreck.

“Halloween III: Season of the Witch”

After seemingly killing off superhuman
serial killer Michael Myers at the end of the second film, the producers of the
“Halloween” series decided to continue the franchise as an anthology. Each
year, they would release a new film with a different plotline, all based on an
aspect of the Halloween holiday season. This could have been interesting, but
the idea that they came up with for “Season of the Witch” was putrid. Conal
Cochran, an evil madman who heads an Irish mask making company, hatches a plot
to murder millions of children on Halloween with killer Halloween masks. He
then plans to replace the kids with androids. I know there was a lot of cocaine
use in Hollywood in the ‘80s, but even that can’t explain how anyone could have
thought that this storyline would work. “Halloween III” confused and
disappointed fans of the first two films. Its critical and commercial failure
led to the return of Michael Myers for “Halloween 4” and all subsequent
installments of the series.

“Poltergeist III”

“Carol Anne! Carol Anne! Carol Anne!” This
blog often features movie drinking games, and “Poltergeist III” would be a
perfect candidate. Just take a drink every time a character says “Carol Anne”
and try to avoid passing out before the movie is over. Carol Anne is, of
course, played by the late Heather O’ Rourke, who became an ‘80s pop culture
icon after her starring role in the original “Poltergeist.” She gives a pretty
good performance here, especially considering her young age, but most of the
actors phone it in. In this installment, Carol Anne is living with her aunt in
a Chicago high rise skyscraper. Of course, the evil spirits from the first two
films return to torment her once again. What was creepy in the first
“Poltergeist” and familiar in “Poltergeist II” becomes downright boring here.
Other than a change in setting, it has nothing new to offer. Heather O’ Rourke
died suddenly before the film was released, casting an additional shadow over
it. If there’s one thing that can be said about the earlier films on this list,
it’s that they didn’t kill their franchises. This one did. Twenty-five years
later, there has been absolutely nothing “Poltergeist” related, unless you
count the ‘90s television series “Poltergeist: The Legacy”, which had virtually
nothing to do with the films. The series’ complete disappearance is mind
boggling for a horror franchise that was once so popular in the ‘80s.

The Exorcist II: The Heretic

This one is just insulting. Its one claim
to fame is that it’s the only “Exorcist” follow up to feature Regan McNeil,
played by Linda Blair. Set several years after the events of the original film,
Regan is now in her late teens and somehow has gained psychic abilities. The
demon from the first film returns, of course, and attempts to torment her and
the people around her.The film features
swarms of locusts, a pointless subplot involving demonic possession in Africa,
and a completely suspense-less and bland conclusion. “The Exorcist II” was a
colossal critical and commercial failure. It was eventually followed by “The
Exorcist III”, starring the legendary George C Scott as a detective. Two
prequels were later released as well, but “The Exorcist” never really took off
as a franchise.

Sadly, this list only scratches the
surface. A full list of all of the bad horror sequels out there would be
difficult, but here are some that almost made this list.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

We try to keep our content pretty unbiased here and I've canned quite a few post ideas on the premise that they are too "Seattlecentric". However, this whole tug of war for the Kings, which has been buried on major news sites, isn't just a Seattle thing, or a Sacramento thing. Its about a couple of different things, being a sports fan and the NBA in general. And we don't have a lot of sports stuff on here.

For as long as I can remember, I've always been a Seattle SuperSonics fan. I was there during the Kemp/Payton years, and I was there when those titanic teams fell apart due to mismanagement and egos. I was there Vladamir Stepania and Jerome James' breasts. I've seen the highs and the lows. When the Sonics were ripped out of Seattle with tepid resistance from the city and state government, I was furious. I swore off the NBA forever(This of course didn't last), and I railed against the very system that created this situation. Still, back in 2008, I wanted the Sonics back under two conditions, one, the new arena combined public and private financing and is a good investment for both sides, and two, it had to be either an expansion team, or from Memphis, a city who at the time I'm not sure realized they ever had a team.

Now, five years later, Seattle has its deal for a new arena. Despite some attempted slander by the Seattle Times, it is widely considered the fairest deal possible. An ownership group has assembled that is hell bent on bringing a team back and has ridiculously deep pockets. However, the NBA has made it clear that there are no plans to expand and further dilute the market and talent pool. The NBA has finally reached a point where the talent level in the NBA is reminiscient to 20 years ago, before early entries muddled the pool, they don't want to give that up. Furthermore, its all about market share, the owners do not want to allow another set of hands in the pot.

The Sonics ownership group has set their sights on Sacramento, which has endured its own descent from the elite with poor ownership. Chris Hansen and company made the Maloofs an offer, the Maloofs accepted, Sacramento is spurred into action, and today both parties presented their sides to the NBA Board of Governors.
Naturally, the city of Seattle is excited about the return of the Sonics. But to me, at least, the entire scene rages with great hypocrisy.
One thing that the citizens of the greater Seattle area is great at, is being angry. The specter of the Sonics leaving suddenly made the Sonics very popular. An award winning documentary was created exposing the whole twisted process that led to the Sonics departure. Sonicsgate and their crew were the constant, driving activists that constantly rallied Sonics fans and ensured that what happened here would never be forgotten. Suddenly, now that the Sonics were gone, it was very cool to be a Sonics fan.
Now that it is becoming increasingly probable that the Sonics will be returning. It, after all, makes very little financial sense, long term or short term, to veto the purchase agreement signed by the Maloofs and Hansen and crew. I've been disappointed by the reaction of Sonics fans. Sure, there is the natural excitement of basketball coming back, I get that, and feel it, but at the same time, I'm left wondering, what the hell were we so mad about?

I was outraged by the NBA's economic model holding cities ransom to the point that I often wondered if I could support another NBA team whenever they came back. Why support such a business that operates from Stern's bully pulpit? Now, at the eve of the Sonics returning, I find myself terribly conflicted, and I think I'm in the minority. It seems like Sonics fans, including the Sonicsgate crew, who penned an insulting letter to Sacramento Kings fans on Grantland, weren't mad about the actual process, they were mad they lost their team. The reaction to pissed off Kings fans is "Yeah, that sucks, we know how that goes, but this is real exciting!"

Come opening night next fall, Key Arena will be packed to the gills, I, and thousands others will be there. Chances are David Stern will have swaggered into the arena as well to deliver a smug coronation. And chances are the 17,000 fans in attendance will boo the living hell out of him, venting five years of anger. Stern will look up, smile and soak it all in. He has everything he wants, a new arena and a billionaire ownership group. Nothing has changed, we didn't prove anything to the NBA, they operate as they always have, we're the suckers. The NBA played hardball with us and we caved. We didn't really want the NBA to stop holding cities hostage, or to change their flawed economic system. We didn't want to fall on our swords to send a message, or, even with the wheels of business rolling the Sonics back to Seattle, we didn't want to take a stand. We turned around and did the exact same thing to Sacramento without hardly a speck of genuine remorse. In the end, we're all suckers to the great business that is professional sports. We root for clothing and the idea of what it represents. In the end, all we wanted was basketball, and sometimes it just feels wrong.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Here at Table 71 we love a good flick. We also love a good cocktail. However
what we enjoy even more is mixing those two together. As always we have chosen 7
events that show up periodically throughout the movie. When these events take
place, you take a "drink". We have also chosen 3 events that show up only once
in the movie. These are the "shot" events. It is very important that you don't
miss the shot events. The only other rule we have at Table 71 for our Movie
Drinking Games is have fun. You are enjoying a good movie with good people (or
alone if that is the way you swing.. we don't judge)

Take a drink everytime Jim Carrey lies
Take a drink everytime Jim Carrey insults someone
Take a drink everytime The Claw is seen or mentioned
Take a drink for every objection in court.
Take a drink for every instance of physical comedy
Take a drink everytime Jim Carrey offends a women.
Take a drink everytime Jim Carrey accidentally tells the truth.

Take a shot for the Boardroom Roast
Take a shot for the pen being Blue
Take a shot for prenuptial agreements

If you have a movie that you would like us to turn into a drinking game please
leave in the comments below. Now go enjoy your night at the movies!

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

I'm sure it comes as no surprise that we've created a drinking game for March Madness. In fact, I would be disappointed if it wasn't expected of us. We are deviating a little from the standard format due to the flexibility that March Madness allows. Of course, we have our standard seven drinks and three shots.

We've also created a drink that we feel fits the overall vibe/feel or each team or school in the tournament. So, without further adieu, here is the Table 71 Drinking Game for the 2013 NCAA Tournament.

Take a shot for a missed free throw with under ten seconds left.
Take a shot for a buzzer beater
Take a shot for every upset by a 12 seed or higher

Take a drink for every "Live Look In"
Take a drink the entire time there is a video review
Take a drink every time Seth Davis is wrong.
Take a drink for every time they show the players on the bench going crazy
Take a drink every time a players family is shown in the stands
Take a drink every time an announcer mispronounces Gonzaga.
Take a drink every time Clark Kellogg says "Dairy Queen"

Friday, March 15, 2013

Here at Table 71 we love a good flick. We also love a good cocktail. However what we enjoy even more is mixing those two together. As always we have chosen 7 events that show up periodically throughout the movie. When these events take place you take a "drink". We have also chosen 3 events that show up only once in the movie. These are the "shot" events. It is very important that you don't miss the shot events. The only other rule we have at Table 71 for our Movie Drinking Games is have fun. You are enjoying a good movie with good people (or alone if that is the way you swing.. we don't judge)

Without any further ado here are the official drinking game rules for Scream.

Drink when someone dies
Drink when there is prank phone call
Drink when a scary movie is referenced
Drink whenever someone implies Sydney's moms a slut
Drink whenever Dewey does something stupid
Drink whenever you see the mask
Drink for the wrongfully accused
Take a shot when someone runs in slow motion
Take a shot when "Everyone is a suspect"
Take a shot for garage door malfunctions

If you have a movie that you would like us to turn into a drinking game please leave in the comments below. Now go enjoy your night at the movies!

Thursday, March 7, 2013

"So you think we might have put a few people out of business today. That its all for naught. You've been doing that everyday for almost forty years Sam. And if this is all for naught then so is everything out there. Its just money; its made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It's not wrong. And it's certainly no different today than its ever been. 1637, 1797, 1819, 37, 57, 84, 1901, 07, 29, 1937, 1974, 1987-Jesus, didn't that fuck up me up good-92, 97, 2000 and whatever we want to call this. It's all just the same thing over and over; we can't help ourselves. And you and I can't control it, or stop it, or even slow it. Or even ever-so-slightly alter it. We just react. And we make a lot money if we get it right. And we get left by the side of the side of the road if we get it wrong. And there have always been and there always will be the same percentage of winners and losers. Happy foxes and sad sacks. Fat cats and starving dogs in this world. Yeah, there may be more of us today than there's ever been. But the percentages-they stay exactly the same."

I'm not sure how I felt/feel after watching Margin Call. Was I outraged by the avarice of Wall Street? No. I'd read The Big Short before watching this movie, and thats where the curtain was pulled away and I was infuriated by the stupidity of Wall Street.

Margin Call, in a way, disappointed me. I wanted it to dig deeper than it did. The characters spoke in vague generalizations, issues were hinted at, but not spoken about. I felt like the director dumbed the movie down for the audience. Sure, I didn't expect this movie to go into extreme depth about subprime mortgage loans and credit default swaps, but I expected quite a bit more depth than was given. I honestly do not know how a viewer, with no previous knowledge, could really actually understand what the hell was going on in this movie. Aside from three, brilliant soliloquies, the dialog was relatively wooden.

However, the acting and entire cast was first rate. Jeremy Irons was a perfect decision for the CEO. He excels at playing distinguished but smarmy characters. His best scene involves a speech delivered while he is eating. While he talks you can hear him chewing and the clinking of his silverware as he explains in a cavalier way how this is just the way things go. It's a great speech and ironic how he talks about how small of parts they play in the giant machine when you consider the great lengths he went to throughout the movie to secure his company's financial security.

The best character in the movie is played by Paul Bettany, who I have never not liked in a role. He has been around long enough to see it all, but not long enough to be unaffected by it. He's powerful, a millionaire, loves the life his job affords him, and accepts it without apologizing. He is the bridge in the movie between the two young, naive analysts and the higher executives. He delivers the merciless truth to the wide eyed kids and knows exactly what to say and who to say it to.

This is far from a perfect movie, but its a movie worth watching. It's interesting that its point seems to be that the financial system is meaningless, that its just numbers on a screen, and that many people give up lives where they actually build something tangible in order to chase money. But, as the characters say on more than one occasion, they don't really have a choice.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

So here at Table 71 we have decided to do an ultimate movie bracket for each year. What that means is that we take the Top 10 movies by Domestic Gross Sales, put in six wild cards and have them duke it out to see what will reign as supreme as the top movie of the year. We seed the movies based on their Rotten Tomato score and may the best one win.

The next year that we have is 1993. This bracket took awhile because like 1992, we had a large disagreement on who should win. We slept on it, changed our minds several times, and had to rewatch some of these movies before we made our decision. So who will win? The utter brilliance of Schindlers List, the hilarity of Groundhog Day, the groundbreaking graphics of Jurassic Park, or one of the other 13 movies that were lucky enough to make the cut. It’s time to find out.

First Round

(1) Schindler’s List vs (16) Indecent Proposal

Schindler’s List. Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler, a ruthless businessman who turned out to have a heart. After originally using the Jews to make money he saw the atrocities that took place by the Nazi’s he spent the majority of his fortune building the factory to employ workers while producing nothing. This movie is based on a true story and shows a side of the Holocaust that you had never seen before.

Indecent Proposal is a good bad movie. The premise is completely ridiculous, but it’s entertaining as hell, and this trainwreck made over 100 million in the states and 260 million worldwide. If you haven't seen this, Robert Redford plays a billionaire who pays a husband (Woody) one million dollars to sleep with his wife(Demi). It just so happens this couple had lost their life savings on the roulette table trying to gamble their way to financing Woody's ludicrous real estate business idea. They take up the suave Redford on his offer and then Woody gets all insecure and bent out of shape afterwards. There are confessions, selflessness in unlikely places and rampant cheesiness abound. I love this movie the same way I love The Replacements, the thing about this flick is, it took itself seriously.

This is an easy pick here. Schindler’s List advances to the next round.

(8) Cliffhanger vs (9) Philadelphia

Ok, I admit it, I saw Cliffhanger opening night, not just at opening night, but opening night at the drive in. I've always dug Sly Stallone for the Rocky movies, but let’s be real here, this movie sucked. John Lithgow is a pretty decent villain, as he usually is, but really, why should I care about a couple of hot shot climbers? I know this is the whole "redemption" storyline that Hollywood beats to death, but I found myself not really caring and not really being entertained,

Philadelphia is a damn good movie. This came out in an era where AIDS was still shrouded in relative mystery, but was becoming ok to talk about(Thank you Magic Johnson) and getting demystified. I felt like this was an honest movie with an absolutely great cast. This was the first time I can remember Denzel whipping out his charming, principled character. Tom Hanks was amazing, and how about Antonio Banderas in a rock solid performance as the boyfriend? I found this, and still find this to be a real intelligent movie.

Philadelphia advances based on the fact that it is everything that Cliffhanger is not, intelligent, well made and well acted. You felt something, this thing called emotion watching Philadelphia, the only emotion I felt watching Cliffhanger was disappointment.

(4) The Fugitive vs (13) Grumpy Old Men

The Fugitive was Harrison Ford continuing his stretch of rock-solid flicks about losing his family. This movie is another one that is on my top 10 list and the main reason why is the performance of Tommy Lee Jones. He doesn’t care what anyone says or what anyone does, he just wants the truth. His performance is US Marshall Samuel Gerard was so good it got him his own movie a couple years later. That doesn’t happen very often. The pacing of The Fugitive was so perfect that it doesn’t feel like you are watching a movie for 130 minutes. Every single scene is crucial to the story, there is no wasted movement at all.

Grumpy Old Men is Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon being curmudgeonly neighbors to each other with a serious axe to grind. Matthau and Lemmon have a fantastic report and work fantastically off each other. This movie is great because you can join it at anytime and you will know right where you are. Plus, I’m sure that everyone has that one neighbor they can’t stand, and some of the pranks pulled in this movie are fantastic ideas.

Look don’t get me wrong Grumpy Old Men is a good movie. But it does not hold up when compared to the brilliance of Harrison Ford, Tommy Lee Jones, and The Fugitive. The Fugitive advances and it will be in a dogfight in the next round.

(5) Jurassic Park vs (12) Mrs. Doubtfire

I love Jurassic Park. It's not just a great movie, but it gave birth to one of the great theme park rides ever. It's the King Kong ride without the constant malfunctions. Jurassic Park is adapted from a novel by Michael Crichton and Steven Spielberg does an outstanding job translating Crichton's often too scientific words into a movie easily understood. Jurassic Park also holds its own over time, the special effects hold up, and its rewatchability factor is off the charts. It's also damn quotable, especially the impeccable Dr. Ian Macolm. "Does anyone else feel that? That's an impact tremor, I'm fairly alarmed here."

Mrs. Doubtfire is Robin Williams doing what Robin Williams does. His wife left him and he can’t see his kids so he dresses up as an old women so he can spend time with them. This movie is proof that parents will do anything, literally anything, to spend time with their kids. You have to appreciate it. A big shout out to Pierce Brosnan for being the boyfriend and being his typical pre-James Bond smug self. He is brilliant in that role.

Even though Mrs. Doubtfire is an uplifting movie about the love between a man and his children, it does not advance. Move on to the next round Jurassic Park, you earned it.

(2) Groundhog Day vs (15) Pelican Brief

Groundhog Day is an absolutely fantastic movie. It would be easy to fuck up this movie. They could've chose to make this a slapstick comedy, or it could've dragged along clumsily. Instead, Groundhog runs along without a hitch and is an essentially perfect movie. The movie is interesting philosophically as well. What would we do if we kept living the same day over and over again? Although much of what Phil (Bill Murray) does is offensive and even a little reprehensible, would we do any differently?

The Pelican Brief is Denzel Washington doing Denzel Washington things, a young Julia Roberts as an upstart law student, and is based on a John Grisham novel. You know that with John Grisham novels you are going to get a lot of dialogue about the law and the endings always leave something to be desired. This movie is no different. The beginning is solid but the end of the movie just drags on. This is a solid movie and I think it is a little bit underseeded in this bracket, but rules are rules and it has a nightmare of a first round matchup.

I love movies that feature some kind of enlightenment, not just some hollow redemption, but a character growing and learning to appreciate life. Phil had to live the same day over and over again until he learned to look at life different and stop being such an insufferable prick. I love this movie and will watch it literally every time it’s on tv. That is why it advances.

(7) Menace II Society vs (10) The Firm

Menace II Society came quickly after Boyz N The Hood and is actually a pretty good movie. It has essentially the same premise, "Young man trying to escape his crime riddled neighborhood" Tyrin Turner plays Caine, whose friend O-Dog(Larenz Tate) is your quintessential thug. There's a murder and Caine is innocent, well, not entirely innocent, nobody is in this world that this movie depicts. Menace II Society kicked off a flurry of movies in the Boyz N The Hood vein, but none of them, Menace II Society included, could rival Boyz N The Hood.

The Firm, great setup, great acting, great cast. The Firm is one of those movies that runs with the "Things are too good to be true" idea and executes it well. Tom Cruise plays a young lawyer fresh out of law school who is lured to an old, established law firm with promises of a new BMW, a new house and a nice salary. Of course, this law firm is up to nefarious things that Cruise soon uncovers. I'll admit that the final twenty minutes of the movie clunk along with poorly described reason, but it doesn't ruin the rest of the flick, and once again, the performances are first rate all around. The Firm advances.

(6) Homeward Bound vs (11) Sleepless in Seattle

This is the toughest matchup of the first round for me. Homeward bound is a heartwarming tale about two dogs and one cat being left behind at a farm and going on a long journey to get back to their masters. You have Chance who is the young rabble-rouser, the prissy miss Sassy, and the thoughtful old-timer in Shadow. Chance is always getting in trouble and Shadow is always bailing him out of trouble. The end of the movie is a real tear-jerker. Chance and Sassy have already made it home, but did Shadow? The wait is agonizingly long but when he limps over that hill and in too the arms of that little boy the water works start. I am not ashamed to admit this.

In the pantheon of romantic comedies, Sleepless In Seattle is outshined by only one film. The opening radio show sequence was an instant classic. Nora Ephron's writing is, of course, filled with wit and charm. The movie is cheesy, but it knows its cheesy, and the characters know its cheesy. I really love this movie.

We here at Table 71 have an affinity for Rom-Coms. That is why Ghost went so far in 1990 and that is why Sleepless in Seattle wins here. Two movies in this bracket, Homeward Bound and the movie in the next match-up were two movies I would always watch as a kid. Writing about this makes me feel so old and wish for the days when movies like Homeward Bound would hold my attention for two plus hours. But alas we all must grow up.

(3) In the Line of Fire vs (14) The Sandlot

Clint Eastwood plays an aging tormented "insert name of occupation here" who is embroiled in one last saga. This time, he's a secret service agent who is still kicking himself over not saving JFK. Now, 30 years later, a clever lunatic (played by John Malkovich) is determined kill the President. He leads Eastwood through a fascinating game of cat and mouse. I've seen this movie a few times, and every time I see it on tv, I'm compelled to watch again. Even Renee Russo is sufferable in this. This is a smart and entertaining movie, another dandy from Eastwood.

Being that baseball player that I was going growing up the Sandlot was one of my favorite movies throughout my youth. Still to this day when I see Squintz making out with Wendy Peffercorn, Ham insulting the team with the real uniforms, and the Fourth of July where tey can play a night game I just smile and remember my childhood. I always was happy that Smallz found some friends and I cringe whenever I see him hit that Babe Ruth ball over the fence. That climactic chase between Benny, wearing his P.F Flyers, and the Beast is absolute gold and James Earl Jones cameo is not to be forgotten either. This is a top-five baseball movie and should be much higher than a 14 seed but here we are.

So who wins? Eastwood being Eastwood or the immortal Hamilton Porter saying “You are killing me Smallz!!”? It absolutely pains me to say this but In The Line of Fire advances by the slimmest of margins, taking out Yeah-Yeah, Bertram, and Denunez. I just hope they will let me play if they need one more!

Great Eight

(1) Schindler’s List vs (9) Philadelphia

Schindler's List isn't just one of the greatest movies of 1993, it is one of the greatest movies ever. It isn't a joy to watch, as it tackles a sordid and horrifically depressing part of human history, but it is ultimately a story of hope, and one man doing what he knew was right. I saw this movie when it came out, I was eight, my family was on a camping trip and apparently my parents decided I was old enough to witness the graphic depictions of the realities of The Holocaust. I was pretty stunned and horrified, which, was probably the point. I missed the ending hopefulness of the movie on my first viewing, as I couldn't unsee some of those scenes for months.

Philadelphia is an excellent, important movie. The performances are first rate. But it’s going against a titan here. This is like a Foo Fighters album going against Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Admirable, but mistaken.

(4) Jurassic Park vs (5) The Fugitive

Wow. So this is the matchup that the two writers of this blog couldn’t figure out the winner of. I mean look at these two choices again. That is why doing this bracket is both a blessing and a curse. We had a blast discussing who should win this matchup, but we both think that this matchup was one round too early. The way we figured this out was thru seven criteria. I will share these with you now:

1. Rewatchability factor: Yes this comes up a lot in our bracket, but it is one of the most important part of movies. Both of these movies rate very high on the rewatchability factor scale, but we gave a slight edge to The Fugitive, because when this movie is on I am no doubt watching it to the end. The Fugitive and A Few Good Men are the only two movies where I am stopping what I am doing, sitting down and taking a break for a couple hours.

2. Soundtrack: Big win here for Jurassic Park. John Williams iconic orchestra when the dinosaurs are being seen for the first time is one of the best pieces of music in movie history. In fact when we make our movie song bracket, the Jurassic Park Theme Song will be a top-2 seed. You can book that now.

3. Story Writing: After discussing this for what seemed like eons we decided that the better writing goes to the Fugitive here. The script is a lot tighter and just kept building and building all the way to the end. The Jurassic Park script climaxes in the middle with the first time seeing the T-Rex and latter third drifts off a little bit. The whole part with Dr. Grant and the kids getting lost deters what was great about this movie in the first place. The dinosaurs.

4. Idea/Originality: Another slam dunk win for Jurassic Park. While The Fugitive was a good idea for a movie, there had been similar plots done before. Jurassic Park was so completely out of left field that it literally left movie-goers speechless. The idea behind Jurassic Park was completely original. This is something that had never been done before.

5. Acting: The acting is superb in both movies. Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones play well off of each other and all of the U.S Marshalls fit their roles to a t. The Chicago Police department is supposed to be an inept group that can’t keep tabs on an escaped convict, and they play that role very well. As far as Jurassic Park the chemistry that you see between Dr. Grant and Dr. Sadler is superbly done, and the kids did a good job. The real money maker for me in Jurassic Park was Richard Attenborough as John Hammond. Attenborough steals the show as the developer of this theme park, and a more perfect actor could not have been cast. Since I still can’t decide this category I am calling it a push.

So when you look back on these criteria you have 2 huge wins for Jurassic Park, 1 win and 1 small win for The Fugitive, and 1 push. I think the edge goes to Jurassic Park because of the originality of the picture, and because of the soundtrack. Jurassic Park squeaks by to face another tough opponent in Schindler’s List.

(3) In the Line of Fire vs (11) Sleepless In Seattle

I love Sleepless in Seattle. But let's take it for what it is here, it's a cute romantic comedy with a flurry of borderline iconic scenes. It’s not a great movie, it drags a little in the middle and Bill Pullman's character is necessary, but painful. In the Line of Fire is a thriller, it builds and builds, there is some good old fashioned mind-fucking by the villain. It’s the better movie. I'll watch the whole thing. With Sleepless in Seattle, it’s the beginning and end, with a jump to the "I cried at the end of The Dirty Dozen" scene. Not a complete movie, In The Line of Fire is.

(2) Groundhog Day vs (10) The Firm

Groundhog Day is a movie with a perfect, inevitable ending. It is also content with not explaining everything, what happened happened, there isn't a need to delve into the metaphysical. It is also essentially a takeoff on The Christmas Carol, as a complete dickwad experiences a redemption in the course of "one" night. If Bill Murray played took more roles like his character of "Phil" in Groundhog Day, I'd like him more. Instead he sits and stares vacantly, utters little, and we are supposed to opine about the "depth" of his performances.

The Firm loses this matchup for a couple of reasons. The ending just didn't really work and I didn't ever really like Cruise's character of Mitch McDeere. The only morality he abides by is his lawyer/client confidentiality agreement. Hell of an interesting movie and Wilford Brimley, Hal Holbrook, Gene Hackman and Ed Harris are all amazing. I really like this movie, but it can't hold up to Groundhog Day.

The Final Four

(1) Schindler’s List vs (4) Jurassic Park

The all Stephen Spielberg part of our Final Four!! By the way I have never trusted Ralph Fiennes in any movie he has been in since I saw his portrayal of Amon Goeth in Schindler's List. That is a testament to the performance as he added depth to a, according to the history books, ruthless animal. The music is dark and raw, the filmmaking unflinching and excellent. How can this not advance?

When the T-Rex attacked in Jurassic Park, I promptly climbed out of my seat, and spent the rest of the movie next to my dad. That scene is one of the most famous in the last twenty years. It's terrifying, it's thrilling and it’s a little funny too. It's when all of the awe inspiring discoveries of the first 45 minutes come to a screeching halt and the movie, in essence becomes a monster movie. I know Chrichton was trying to, once again, prove man's undisciplined approach to science, but Spielberg made the first half of the movie so amazing, so enrapturing, that the last half of the movie, the lesson teaching part, seemed like a letdown. Yes, it is a testament of man's inability to control nature, but it appears like a monster movie with dinosaurs. I really like Jurassic Park, but this nagging complaint over the years results in its demise at the hands of a film like Schindler's List.

(2) Groundhog Day vs (3) In the Line of Fire

Obviously the less heralded of the final four matchups, these two movies none the less are worthy to make it this far. Clint Eastwood vs Bill Murray. A matchup you don’t see very often but thanks to the magic of the movie bracket you get to see it play out right before your eyes. Bill Murray was just a jack ass as that TV Weatherman sent to hell on earth that is Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. Let’s be honest for a second here, if you had to wake up every day in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania you would probably hate your life too. Murray keeps getting more chances to do what is right, and the highs and lows of this movie are absolutely hilarious. When we first came out with this bracket I was a little surprised to see it at a 2-seed, but once I looked back at how damn funny this movie is, the two seed and a chance to be in the championship matchup are well deserved.

In the Line of Fire is the complete opposite. It does not have one funny moment. This movie is serious but it is a well made serious movie. Where Groundhog Day doesn’t take itself too serious, In the Line of Fire doesn’t mess around with puns, quips, or anything else that might make you crack a smile. You got to respect that.

After thinking about this for awhile we decided that while In the Line of Fire is a very good movie, Groundhog Day gets the nod and makes the final!!

Championship

(1) Schindler’s List vs (2) Groundhog Day

Ideally, this bracket would've ended with Jurassic Park and Schindler's List in the championship. However, we are faithful to our seedings, and must accept the way they roll out. Groundhog Day is a good movie, but its lacks that grand movie feel that Jurassic Park has and of course lacks the depth of feeling and purpose of Schindler's List. It's amazing that a story as that of Oskar Schlinder was kicked around Hollywood for over a quarter century before Spielberg finally decided to make it. Spielberg has always been about the grandness and spectacle of movies. Schindler's List is a leap in the opposite direction, it is stripped down and honest. That was really the only way to make a film like that. Naturally, Schindler's List is the best movie of 1993, case closed.